tv [untitled] February 4, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PST
commissioner moore: i look for the architect that he does that in a way that it does not look so jarring. at this moment, i am not attacking your design. it is just the way these rendering techniques do not leave any imagination. that are just what they are. for the sake of the project sponsor and everyone here -- president olague: please restate the motion. commissioner moore: staff will work with the architect on railing designs which, to a maximum degree possible, reflect a railing type which is based on the picket rather than solid. >> does your motion still include the setback at the first
level? commissioner moore: yes. on the ground floor, we are creating a notch against the west property line in the way mr. smith sketched it out. >> your motion is to pull in three feet from the property line. we need to put a number of there. you are also creating more transparency with the railing, where possible, with individual pickets. commissioner moore: including the third deck up there, yes. commissioner sugaya: i believe the other railings on the decks are what we are talking about, something on that order. so it is consistent. also, i think the city is moving toward not having glass rings because of impact on birds.
it probably would be good to move away from them anyway. president olague: is that clear among everyone, more or less? ok. >> that is a motion on the floor to take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications you have stated, to have a notch on the ground floor and to make the railings of the decks more in keeping with a lighter picket fence look, to the extent possible. on that motion -- commissinoner antonini: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. thank you, commissioners. commissioners, you are now on
item 11, case 2,010.1024d, 42095 market street -- for 2095 market street. >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. elizabeth watty, planning department stuff. this is a mandatory discretionary review of a building permit application to allow a new medical campus dispensary.
it will not allow on-site consumption of cannabis, nor will it permit any on-site cultivation. the mcd is not located within 1,000 feet of any school, or community center could supply service persons under 18. it is not on the same party as a -- property a substance abuse treatment center. the proposal has been significant of reach. the department has received two phone calls in opposition. we believe they have met planning code requirements. this is one of the few sites in the upper market castro neighborhood that permits mcds,
is well served by transit, and is consistent with the general plan. we recommend the commission not take dr and approved. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. president olague: project sponsor. >> afternoon, commissioners. i am rhein hudson, along with my partner, michael thompson. we are the sponsors of this project. i am a resident of san francisco and a bay area native. my background is technology with high-tech start-ups. recently, my position was at a local bank. michael is also a resident of san francisco. he is the founder and president upper a -- of a management and logistics company. we believe we will run a responsible dispensary in the city. we have a strong sense of community and a feeling of responsibility to help those that cannot always help
themselves. we feel the apothecary will be a great way for us to do there. in addition to serving our members in a safe and respectable seven, will have a compassionate program that provides free medicine to those unable to afford it. another benefit we plan to provide is subsidized partnerships with local providers and physicians. one is a doctor who has occupied a chiropractic clinic in the castro for over 25 years. do our compassion program, we will be offering her services as an adjunct therapy to our members. we have formed a philanthropic advisory board that will assist us in directing resources to local nonprofits and social services, such as the my tree compassionate care, the castro steps, and a unique organization that provides food
and medical care and support for the pets of low income persons with hiv, aids, or other disabling illnesses. if granted our permit, we will begin improvements. within months of opening, we will need about a dozen employees. 2095 market street is located between 14th and church street. it was previously occupied by a video rental store. it has been vacant since november 2009. the dispensary will be one of a series of retail space is on that side of market space. it is not close to any residential-only zones. it conforms to all relevant guidelines in the planning code. when completed, it will appear as many other upscale retail locations. in addition, it sits at the nexus of several major transportation corridors and public transit routes. these include the church street stop and all markets st. buses and trolleys.
the easy accessibility will be a key attribute for patients who rely on public transport. the area surrounding the intersection of market and church is already accustomed to having a dispensary in the area. one of the first was located across the street at 194 church. it was recently forced to close after it could not meet city requirements laid out in the medical cannabis act, which left many patients in the area without access. my client -- my partner and i conducted outreach, personal introductions, several open houses, mailings, meetings with neighborhood organizations, and introducing ourselves at school and they care centers in the area, as well as meeting with the sfpd. we have received 10 letters of support and 75 signatures in support. supervisor scott weiner has also
written a letter of support. that should be included as part of the materials which submitted today, if not in the original brief. we think all members of the community who were open to meeting with us. the people we met were welcoming, open-minded, and entirely respectful, even if it were a bit wary about the idea. but always treated it as a prospect. we would like to thank the following individuals and organizations. steve adams, president of the merchants of upper market. alan beach, president of the eureka valley neighborhood association and a member of our philanthropic advisory board. liz watty has been a pleasure to work with. we respectfully ask the commission to approve our application. we intend to be exemplary members of the community. president olague: we have a few
speaker cards. i am going to limit it to two minutes. michael coehn alibi josh kramer and david goldman. >> can you hear me? my name is michael cohn. i am a resident at 246 sanchez street. he will be a neighbor. i am a homeowner. and have lived there for 24 years. i want to speak as a neighbor. i went to both the open houses. i asked a number of questions. i asked how the space was coined to run, what the security was going to be.
i looked at the blueprints the architect had drawn. i was very impressed. i thought this could be a real model for the dispensary in the neighborhood. i recommend you approve the proposal for the dispensary. i am sure that it will be a real positive influence on the neighborhood. i look forward to having it. thank you. president olague: i do not know if there is any opposition in the audience currently. we can go through, and obviously you all have an opportunity to speak, but there does not appear to be any opposition. if you want to stand up and show your support, that is another way we can achieve a similar goal and save us all a lot of time.
thank you all. i recognize a lot of people from previous hearings. we called the cards. there are a couple more. you certainly have the opportunity to speak if you would like to. otherwise, we will close the public hearing. it is up to you. is there any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. vice president miguel: this is an interesting location. it is probably a historic building, which we have all passed. i never took a good look at it before. it is an early 1900's building. it even has a wood floors and it. from what i see of the drawings, but this is going to -- from what i see of the drawings, this is going to look
like another storefront, without question. it is a modern type of business replacing one that has just gone by the wayside. [laughter] it is nearly -- it could be considered a historic reuse. i really appreciate the outrage that has been done -- beat out reach -- the outreach that has been done to the neighborhood organizations, the new supervisor of the district, and the population of the district. obviously, there is no one here against it. i would move we do not take dr and approve the project. commissioner moore: second. i am in full support. the thing i am really glad about is that we are starting to really distribute the facilities a little bit more evenly, such
as we are doing with where health care should be provided. i see this as a similar thought. they should not be all stuck somewhere on mission, or wherever they are. i do think we need to bring them closer to where the needs are, this being the first sign. i really would like us to perhaps take a look into the future, and perhaps at one. make a sketch of how the could be best distributed. i think it could be a mile or two. what we do not want to do is have these facilities compete with each other. they should be service and health care focused. this does not have anything to do with you. but i would like to look into the future. we have been for the last two or
three years struggling with all of them having to move into a certain place, partially because of distance from schools and public facilities required in our way of placing it. i want to put that into the trusting hand of the director to sometimes think about. that is a policy shift for us to find a more equitable way to at least tentatively booked for a corporate locations citywide. -- at least tentatively look for distributed locations citywide. >> is there a minimum and maximum by district or by block? i know the rules about schools and churches and things. being the new kid here, maybe at some point you can update me. thank you. commissinoner antonini: i think one of the parts of the law, if
i am interpreting correctly, is you are not supposed to say you cannot have one if there are others in the area. i believe concentration of dispensaries is not a criteria for not approving, even though in real terms it certainly is something you are going to look at. i think this is -- i am supportive of this. there are some i have not supported for a couple good reasons. this is exactly what it should be, as far as i am concerned. that is a plus for distribution, and apothecary, or the pharmacy. if the laws were uniform nationwide, this is probably what it should be, rather than a social club or a place where people consume on site, for a lot of reasons of transport and other conditions that could be hazardous. i think they are doing the right thing. the other reason i am supportive is there is overwhelming neighborhood support. on all of the drs we hear,
neighborhood support is a big factor. there have been some neighborhoods that have not been supportive. we have to take that into consideration. these are the big reasons i support this. president olague: there is a motion on the floor to not take dr. commissinoner antonini: aye. 'commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: aye. president olague: aye. >> the motion passes unanimously. [applause] commissioners, just for the record, i will restate that for item 12, case 2,010.0911d, the dr has been withdrawn and this matter is no longer required for your consideration.
you are now on item 13, a case 2,010.0758d, for 454 greenwich street. president olague: i do not know if staff is here for this item. we will take a five minute recess while we are waiting for staff. that is probably the case. >> the commission is >> 454 greenwich street. >> good evening, planning staff. the project before you proposes that one-story horizontal extension to an existing partial third floor of a single family residential structure.
it would expand 24 feet closer to the yen witch frontage, and would leave a setback to the front of the building. a new roof deck is proposed and would be situated on the roof of the newly configured third floor. an interior remodel, window rio window replacement and stucco replacement would occur. the site of the mid block and front ans on the street measures approximately 17 feet wide and 0e feet deep. the subject building has a three-story structure that occupies the entire area of the lot and contains a single family residential dwelling unit with two off-street parking places. the structure constructed in 1928 has been determined to be a historic resource by the department. it was reviewed by the residential design team.
they reviewed it and determined that is does not have adverse impact to the light and air. impact to light are not exceptional and extraordinary, due to the sol lar orientation of the d.r. requesters third floor roof deck and third story. the d.r. requesters third floor roof deck has direct southern exposure and are expected to continue to mid-day light reception. private views are not protected by the planning code. under the commission's pending d.r. reform legislation this project would not be referred as this does not contain or create exceptional circumstances. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you.
commissioner olague: d.r. requester? >> i'm mark zucker. i'm the adjacent neighbor at 444 greenwich. i'm also a design professional and design custom homes all over. i have a lot of expertise in this matter. a little history on this property and my property. i purchased my home roughly 3 1/2 years ago. it was in dire need, everything needed to be replaced. the first thing that we did was to reach out to the neighbors and the telegraph hill dwellers and understand the neighborhood and the intent of the neighborhood and how -- how things work. and what people's expectations were. based on that, i worked backwards. as the -- as a result, i
maintained the integrity of the home. 1908. we kept the entire building envelope intact. we didn't go up or out. we worked within our envelope to preserve the height to our neighbors, including the neighbor next to us who is proposing push out. 18 months ago we completed the renovation. the photos i prepared illustrate that. my problem here is a proposal -- i looked at item 10, there was an impact. this is a significant impact, much more than that. we're talking about a 24-foot projection over my courtyard -- an additional 5 1/2 feet of vertical height. two feet of the structure. 3 1/2 feet of railing for the roof deck. i just heard in the last report that glass railings may not be allowed on a property line. it may be solid, which would
further impact my light. this is about our south light orientation and exposure. plain and simple. we a garden and a living room. and as the photos illustrate and i will walk through briefly that -- that -- that -- our light is significantly impacted, the photos i took were at 2:45 in the afternoon. this is by no means late afternoon sun. what i like to do now is walk through the photos on here this is what the patio looks like in the current state. if you look at the first line, which is here. that's where the structure is supposed to go up. the second is where the railing would go. this is a huge -- this is the next page, page two, which is not very clear.
this illustrates the shaving participate, we marked up what we thought was the building height. it is two feet higher. we illustrated that. we're showing the shading regardless -- that dotted line indicates the shading, which means we would be blocked of southern exposure by 2:45 in the afternoon. next photo illustrates our living room and the light that we enjoy currently. it is a fairly -- it is -- the reason why we bought the property was for the southern exposure, for the height. for the openness. if you look at the next pain, we indicated -- we used roughly 60% of our solar access. this window would be completely blocked with the proposed
construction. if you go to defwren witch. and i really took issue with this, the staff, i don't think they had full understanding of this. hime showing in black what you would see from standing on greenwich. this is standing in the street, on the middle of the street. it is significant impact. it would be all glass. it would have nothing to the with the architectural of the street. it would take away from the historic commitment of the street in my opinion. finally, the last couple of items, i want to show essentially, this is what i would look at from my patio which is essentially all of my plantings would -- would need to be turned into with face plants. then i'm showing a glass rail which i'm -- i'm still in question if the rail is even legal based on the fact it is on the property line. >> okay. illustrated -- here. where we're standing than 0 our
patio and illustrate the significance of the wall. adjacent to -- to it with the railing. and this is directly south. south west. finally, you know in terms of outreach, i did reach out to this neighbor. we had one meeting. there was no feedback. he didn't reach out to us we reached out to him. i couldn't help myself -- as a design professional, i could force two alternative design concepts for him to show that you could easily achieve what he wanted to do on that third level without expanding to the extent that he did. i showed an eight-foot extension and proposed he did a roof deck at the lower left which wouldn't impact the neighbors, particularly me. i couldn't get in feedback, we tried to work and i couldn't get a dialogue. i put together two proposals, one showing a master suite. where did it go?
anyway, my feeling is -- that -- that this home at 3,000 square feet exceeds the general size of the homes in the neighborhood. it is a single family home. there are multi-family dwellings but this is a single family home. i feel it is putting a huge impact on my property. and i would -- i would really request -- i would like it if this cob pushed back to the discretionary review where we could work together and solve the problem. he sexressd to me, he didn't have the -- he expressed to me he didn't have money to go back to the architect. i said i would do it for free. i design for people all over the country. i would design for free and work with him to get something more appropriate for the street. that's pretty much all i have to offer at this point. thank you for listening. >> we'll hear from the speakers
in support of the d.r. requester. >> good evening. my name is mark. i own the property at 37 telegraph place, which is directly behind the subject property. i also received the initial letter about the project and did myself outreach with the sponsor and did meet with the sponsor to -- to address my concerns, which were similar but somewhat different. my particular case, the -- the roof deck in question, i had some issues with -- with -- with because it faces into my bedroom. basically the same level. i pointed out to the sponsor that i thought this roof deck was extraordinary. being about 600 square feet. then i didn't know they built the deck that large but perhaps
you can. i asked for forbearance from him and understanding. in addition in the drawing you have seen, the thing that i was given as a neighbor, they have the placement of a rooftop heating and air conditioning unit which would sit on the roof in front of the window of my bedroom. and i asked about noise and -- noise mitigation. and -- the sponsor, mr. kennedy -- he seemed to understand -- to understand the issue and said perhaps he might mitigate that by moving it further away. his point was to speak with his architect. it wasn't a great concern. in the moving of it, he didn't have a problem with it. the noise of that is a huge concern to everybody there. particularly since -- about as far as i am from you. i'll be sleeping there. those were my issues. one further exceptio those were my issues. one further exception. when i looked at the drawings and i contacted mr. kennedy in